One day after the Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust filed their latest Adjustment Bureau suit in state court, defendants Media Rights Capital responded. The company today filed an action in federal court to determine whether “Adjustment Team”, the Dick short story on which the 2011 film was based, is in the public domain or not. (Read the filing here.) This has been a source of contention between the parties since the film was released March 4, 2011. A court ruling could settle any suits over payments and profit participation allegedly due the trust from the film by resolving whether the trust actually had a binding ability to option rights to director George Nolfi back in 2001. “When the Philip K. Dick Trust filed its initial lawsuit in federal court, we looked forward to the court ruling on whether the underlying story to the Adjustment Bureau is in the public domain,” MRC said in a statement released today. “We were disappointed when the trust dropped its lawsuit before the court could reach a decision. The issue remains an important one, so today MRC filed an action in federal court asking the court to rule on the public domain issue. We look forward to a prompt resolution of this issue.”
The suit the filed yesterday came after Dick trustees abandoned a previous federal case against Nolfi and MRC on February 17, when the judge dismissed key claims citing lack of jurisdiction. Yesterday’s suit claims that Nolfi, producer Michael Hackett, MRC and its subsidiaries owe the trust at least $500,000 plus fees and other damages “to be proven at trial” from the film starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt, which has grossed $127.9 million theatrically worldwide.
Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.


I want to sue them both for making such a shitty movie!
I’ll settle out of court for my $15.50.
Hollywood would be beyond bankrupt if we could sue them just for making shiity movies…
If one uses the work, almost entirely, of another to capitalize on his or her labor and product without proper compensation, the claim of “Its legal.” is not only disingenuous, but also ethically wanting. In the realm of ethics in Medicine and Science there is the common dilemma of ‘just because we are able to do something does not mean that we should.’ I have seen things people throw out for the sanitation crews to pick up that I think is valuable and knocked on the doors of the owners to tell them to reconsider disposing of it because it remains useful to someone. They often reject me. I take the item and, if I don’t use it myself, I donate it. I do this with used.televisions, VCRs, DVD players and computer items. Just as a good journalist or writer assures provenance, so should he or she give both credit and and some benefit, if due. I pay universities for copies of manuscripts and check them for copyright permissions, paying the commissions or citing permissions as directed. Otherwise, it is plagiarism, the ultimate academic sin. So, are the producers of “The Adjustment Bureau” or “Blade Runner” or “Total Recall” or “Minority Report” also guilty? From my own unqualified viewpoint, I think so.